johnisgood

Yeah, heck, whenever an LLM puts my thoughts and intuition into words, it sounds really complex as well.

(FWIW I have an issue with producing words, rather than recognition. I do have the intuition I just lack the labels for it.)

Yes! I immediately noticed that what I said was wrong (even though the word I said still felt somehow connected to the thought I was trying to communicate). I was really worried at first when it happened because at the first time I had no idea sleep deprivation would cause this, or that I would experience it.

I had no idea migraine causes this as well, interesting.

Oh yeah, I have been sleep deprived so much that the things that I said made no sense. I still formulated sentences but they did not have any meaning. In fact, I noticed this myself and I was like "fuck, what I just said made no sense". This happened a few times. It is a pretty interesting experience.

Yeah because "works many times in a row" = "deterministic" to many people.

Yeah! I added that as an example and then edited it out.

Your parent's comment makes no sense.

Water can kill you, too! It does not mean that drinking water is bad.

I think this is making the assumption that temporally elevated HR and BP is bad.

Oracle treats empty strings as being NULL.

That is ridiculous. Do not they know the difference between "" and NULL?

My previous comment got flagged about a minute after I posted it to you. It was three paragraphs and it argued a position without any abuse in it. It is probably someone in this thread who hit flag instead of replying because they did not like what I said. Which is suspicious, and it is also the thing I was already talking about. The throwaway shill insinuation earlier was a way to avoid engaging with a disagreement, and a flag does the same job. Welp.

Yeah, because criticizing the US, and/or making China look good can get you on certain lists. Maybe that is the reason?

FWIW I do not buy into the "China bad, we good" narrative either.

The US has done really fucked up things, bombed countries for freedom, there has been recent events as well. I do not even think they were ever the "good guys" they thought they are. In Hollywood movies, sure, but in reality? Nah.

Good, so it might not be over, considering everyone around the world can use PGP and browsers?

Cannot you just obtain them the same way you would obtain any copyrighted material and use them locally?

Oh brings me to the good pre-CoC era when we did not need to have explicit rules and a simple rule "don't be an asshole" worked just fine. :D You might say that it is too broad, but now with the CoC you have many more broad rules. :P

What do you mean there is not a whole lot of homework prior to Grade 7?

We had a fuckton of homework at every grade, here in Hungary.

That is what I have been saying: we need ZKP! I highly doubt they will implement it though.

They were pretty good a year ago, so I am sure it is even better than that now.

I have many projects with 0 commits, meaning were I to use git, it would be a single commit. It does not mean anything.

Yeah, pretty much. :)

I removed it but I added that I hate these people. :P So yeah, it pisses me off, too.

GPL makes sure that the code remains open. Seems like these new gen devs are against open source.

Yes, these are gut feelings. That said, I have lots of experiences with Opus and I have lots of projects and contributions (all reviewed and tested) made with the help of it. Definitely useful, to me and to people whose project matters to them. :P

Adding "do not make mistakes" is silly, in my opinion. There is always a good chance it will make mistakes. You should rather be more specific about a thing rather than as broad as "do not make mistakes" is. It just does not work that way.

I do agree.

I think that the numerical example you gave appears to be wrong unless you intended 1% rather than 0.01%.

In any case, fair enough. The concern is that organizations will build processes around AI where many people do not review outputs carefully. I do not disagree with this.

I also agree that my particular workflow is anecdotal and does not work at scale.

I have found many mode of failures with Opus during some task related to writing letters (not legal), and I actually put it into the memory and it works more or less for these specific tasks. For example when I want it to draft something, it always ends up being so flat, yet when it explains them to me, it is usually really great but not when I am telling it to put it in the draft. Adding these to memories with the help of Opus ended up resulting in a much better experience. There are still some blind spots but I also figured out how to make it give me the charitable version, without less protection, so I do not have to now go back and forth it.

If I vibe code a project, that involves docs and tests as well. Obviously I do not, at any point, do anything blindly and there are some iterations for everything. I always double-check, and I do not use "agents", I do everything manually. I always check what the LLM is thinking, in real-time. I might be old school, but that allows me to write code that is not a pile of shit. :P I am still conscious about quality.

I really was just commenting on the "Only libc is dynamically linked" bit. But yeah, there are cons and pros of dynamic vs static. :)

Yeah, seems like everything just seems minimal, but not actually is.

If the binary still depends on libc.so.6 (glibc) at runtime, then it is not a fully static binary (read: not a static binary). It is a dynamically linked executable, albeit one where most non-libc dependencies have been statically linked.

I am not going to pretend I know Rust enough to comment (yes, would be a minute check), I was just commenting on the "Only libc is dynamically linked" bit.

Off: I thought I am becoming dumb, but this really puts me in a new perspective. The odd thing is that even people who work in IT hold similar beliefs. I am not entirely sure what is going on. Favoring a language so blindly seems like a thing, apparently? For example they seem to have convinced themselves that Rust is "safe" if you use it for anything (without implementing the security features) because it is (memory) safe? I did not imagine beginners would make such a mistake either, but alas.

I noticed your comment is getting downvoted. I wish I knew why though. Is it because of your analogy? Is it because they think that somehow "single binary" has anything to do with the programming language? Would like to know. I am not going to assume that it is a confirmation of what I wrote earlier.

No, it does not depend. Your parent is correct with his analogy.

Linux package management is solved, if it depends on something, it depends on the specific Linux distribution, but "Linux" package management is definitely solved.

Yeah, this is what the people who have parroted "Rust is safe" have achieved. Rust is not "safe" in the broader sense of the word, only "memory safe". You have to implement the security yourself!